Find a Lawyer

KAKA KISHANCHAND versus THE STATE

Articles 46 and 71 where matters related to the statement of the relevant fact are dead or cannot be found. In this regard, the eight provisions mentioned in Article 46 of the Convention of Martyrdom, 1984, are exempt from the general principle of evidence that all oral evidence should be direct. That is, if it refers to something that can be seen, it must be the evidence of the witness who says that he has seen it. If this refers to a fact that can be heard, it should be proof of the witness who says he has heard. If this is a fact that can be understood by another meaning, then it must be evidence of a witness who says that he has understood it in that sense. If his opinion refers to the evidence of the witness who holds that opinion, as provided by Article 71 of the Law Evidence, 1984, when a person presents a fact to a court, he States under the oath and is responsible for it. If he makes a false statement and his statement can be examined through cross examination then legal action can be taken against him, thus the fact of the said statement is guaranteed, but in this case , Which is covered by a provision of Article 46 of the 1984 Law of Martyrdom. The protective squad is missing, as the statement is not reviewed in all Article 46 as a witness so it is only relevant to the evidence and not to the evidence. criminal advocate from Shaheed Benazirabad lawyer